How am I doing?

[Calzaer]

Got into a noah's ark debate on another board against a complete retard. I feel kinda bad over it, actually. But since it's my first ever "debate science on my own" moment, I thought I'd show it to you smarter-than-me people for critiquing.

Also, this thread has some great FStDT-worthy quotes for WinAce.

http://www.utopia-politics.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7861

[Calzaer]

Oh, and nobody register to jump in, because it's in the "one on one debate" forum.

[faust]

Ouch. I just read through it and by your second post it was pretty much over.

excellent job. though you are obviously way more qualified to debate this than he is.

[lpetrich]

For all their adamant claims that evolution does not happen, creationists are often remarkably vague on what is in each of the various "created kinds". Some have attempted to rectify that situation by creating a discipline of "baraminology" or "discontinuity systematics", but they do not seem to have done much more than rip off mainstream systematics.

So they should be hammered on what's in a "created kind" or baramin. And how much evolution they must accept if they believe in big baramins with large numbers of species.

Another place the creationists lose badly in is biogeography. Try to get creationists to explain why all the polar bears went to the Arctic and teh penguins to the Antarctic, and none in the reverse distribution. Or why all the kangaroos hopped to Australia, leaving none behind. Or why all the sloths made it to South America, why they could be slowly munching tree leaves near Mt. Ararat. Or why all the rattlesnakes slithered off to the Amercas, leaving none behind.

[blindwatchmaker]

The poor soul is obviously way out of his depth (pun intended).

Nice work!

I will never cease to be amazed at how people cling on to their beliefs even in the face of undeniable evidence of the contrary.

We'll hear next that god made the ark bigger on the inside than the outside.
(He's God, he can do that you know....)

[Duvenoy]

You're doing very well indeed, Cal. But, isn't it a little like shooting fish in a barrel?

If it comes to it, you might mention shipbuilding, the resources it would require to put together something like the ark (you'd have to build a shipyard, first), and the impossibility of such a ramshackle craft to survive any chop at all, especally when crewed by only eight terrified and seasick people.

doov

[gregor]

The most ironic statement in the buckethead arsenal was:


"What's this clean/unclean business?"


How ironic that someone with no understanding of any of the sciences can also demonstrate his complete ignorance of his own premise (i.e. Genesis).

But this is not unusual. Go into any Baptist Church and ask them about seven animals versus two animals, and they'll stare at you stupidly. Ask them about the Yahweh story versus the Elohim story, and they'll stop talking to you and figure you for a heretic. Yet, they'll try and defend a day-date creation and a literal Noah's ark based not upon their reading of the Buybull, but upon what the preacher has told them.

[Godot]

More props here Cal. If I were in your shoes, I would have disconnected at this statement:
cal:So rampant unsupported speculation is going to be the order of the day?

response:Definitely. :eek:

[trunks2k]

My god, Cal. How that person even contiues to even try to debate with you is beyond me. You had the debate over by your second post.

I mean, even his refusal to even attempt to define "kinds" is funny. It basically boils down to this:

"cal: We need to define kinds so we know how many animals are on the ark.

bucket: There were enough animals on the ark so that there was enough time for them to evolve into all the animals we have today.

cal: How many is that?

bucket: Enough so that there was enough time so that all the animals on the ark could evolve into all the animals we see today.

cal: How many animals is that? We can't speculate on whether or not the animals could have fit/survived on the ark if we don't know how many there were.

bucket: I don't know. But in order for the flood to be true there would have to be enough animals on the ark so that there was enough time for them to evolve into the animals we see today. And since the flood story is true, there must have been enough animals on the ark so that there was enough tiem for them to evolve into all the animals that we see today

cal: So you are just going to make random, unsupported assertions?

bucket: Yes"

[Ellis14]

LOL, it's hilarious and frustrating. Just the other day on MSN I was talking with an old friend who's still part of the religion I left. After throwing questions and problems up that she couldn't answer, and pointing out holes in doctrine and the bible, and reasoning that X Y and Z could never happen and there is no proof etc, she said in the end "i feel sorry for you, you will believe one day, i just hope it's not too late."

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

It's like attempting foreplay with a tank...useless!

[NottyImp]

It's like attempting foreplay with a tank...useless!

What a remarkable turn of phrase.

[Shpongle]

Originally posted by gregor
The most ironic statement in the buckethead arsenal was:

"What's this clean/unclean business?"

How ironic that someone with no understanding of any of the sciences can also demonstrate his complete ignorance of his own premise (i.e. Genesis).


Yeah, he really dropped the ball there (not that he was holding the ball to begin with...).

I do like the response, though:

So you don't know Biology, you don't know math, and you don't know the Bible. Is there anything relevant to this discussion that you *do* know?

[liquid]

Ah, good ol' utopia politics!

I first got into posting on UP, and also posted for a while when U-P was created. Haven't been back there for ages, though I do see to recognise your name calzaer.

Looks like some of the old favourites are still rumbling along over there.

I used to debate E/C mainly at the beginning. I remember Light CC and Dawntreader as the only creationists worth bothering with though... Light CC was reasonably intelligent but not particularly knowledgeable, still a bit creationist-propaganda led. Dawntreader was very knowledgeable, though I believe I always managed to address his claims.

I think often we were debating above most people though. I tried to get him to come here after a while (in fact someone introduced me to II at UP, I cannot remember who now though!). He'd never agree though; the standard didn't want to discuss in a hostile environment claim. Shame, because he needed taking down a peg or two :D

OK, enough nostalgia!

[Meatros]

My favorite line has got to be this one:

"So you don't know Biology, you don't know math, and you don't know the Bible. Is there anything relevant to this discussion that you *do* know?"

:D

[Calzaer]

If it comes to it, you might mention shipbuilding,

I'm trying to keep the debate centered around the three things he mentioned above. If I made a comprehensive list, he'd address the easy points and ignore the rest. By focusing on a smaller number of things, I can force him to address them all without hearing the excuse of "I just don't have the time to do ALL of those!" And these three things are more than enough to trip him up.

[Calzaer]

I quit.

And my last two posts, I think, are somehow tangentially related to some of the conversations going on in the IICR. Hmm.

[variant 13]

Originally posted by Calzaer
I quit.

I'm not surprised :eek: what a complete and total tit :banghead:

Can't wait to see the response if there is one :D

[Shpongle]

Originally posted by Calzaer
I quit.

I don't blame you, especially after reading this:

"If my argument is indeed as pathetic as you make it, this duel should last four more posts at the most."

This guy gives himself waaaaaaaay too much credit. But you're right. He basically has no real argument for whether it is possible that Noah's Ark occurred, especially with respect to the number of animals Noah took on the Ark. Then again, no other creationists do either...

[Vampyric]

The 'debate' was over almost before it began. Good work in keeping it up and hammering it in for the spectators.

liquid:
So this is where you ran off to. I always wondered where you went after all the E/C debates on UP died out. Good to see you are still out there.

[liquid]

hi vampyric, yeah I keep meaning to register again. I was working for a defence company for a year and that was my only net access, so I didn't want to keep posting, but I've got access at home now and I'm also back at uni so it's not an issue any more.

What is an issue is bone idleness and far too much academic work!

There are still a number of people around from when I was there, I remember buckethead for sure!:banghead:

So I'm here at II most times, though spread out a bit in the forums. I was almost purely EC when I arrived though, but we almost never get creationists here any more.. wonder why!

[Calzaer]

I'm too stubborn for my own good... I stopped giving up.

[Abalone]

In answer to your question of how you're doing, I'd say excellent.

One thing that kept occuring to me as I read it through is that it is a pretty good example of how creationism and science are totally incompatible. One has to wonder whether such debates are ever worth the time, since the two sides can't even agree upon a basis of reality. One side believes in finding truth in the evidence, and the other in the supernatural.

I got the feeling that Sir Buckethead somehow hoped to convince you to think like he does. Which is to say, don't worry too much about the details, because if you don't then you, too, will be able to believe in such a great story. That was the impression I got every time he complained about you trying to get him to commit to some basis for debate.

[variant 13]

Look at his name: Sir Buckethead

sums it up nicely really.

There's no point in the debate, the person is an idiot that expects you to do all the work. They're not even trying.

I know the feeling of wanting to beat sense into them but in this case I say forget it, it's not worth it.

[Zygote]

Some people attempt to gain credibility by engaging the attention of someone who has or can earn credibility. Sir Buckethead is using you for just such a purpose. Now he can say "Hey, this person who knows so much thinks that I am worthy of his time and attention." Never mind that SB seems blithely unaware that he lost the debate in the second volley and is only digging himself in deeper by the minute.

I'd say leave him to his imagination and find a more worthy opponent. That's a debate I'd like to see (partly to see if there is a worthy opponnent).

[Beauregard]

Good job, Calzear. Like others have already said, it was pretty much over by your second post.

I'm involved in a somewhat more generalized evolution debate which can be accessed on the link below. My screen name there is Gorgozilla.

http://www.rodansroost.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=70;t=82;st=25;&#entry41

I should give a bit of background info about the site itself. It's a kaiju (Japanese word for "monster") fansite. Looking at some of the posts out of context, you might get the idea we're a bunch of delusional nuts who believe Godzilla really exists. That's not the case, of course.

To draw an analogy, we can look at Star Wars; SW fans might discuss how lightsabers work, or the nature of the Force, but that doesn't mean they really believe in those things. It's just fun, escapist fantasy. But the real world does get discussed, as Godzilla Legend did with his attack on evolution.

Anyway, I'd encourage anyone who wants to take a look and jump in if you feel like it. :cool: